[CLUE-Talk] Traitors, Cowards, Scoundrels, and Intelligent Dissenters

[Kevin Cullis]

On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 07:36, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> 
> Wake up and smell the coffee, Kevin - this isn't about human rights, it
> isn't about protecting the U.S. from Iraq - it is firmly about grabbing
> Iraqi oil and American business interests. 

I've never said that oil was not in the picture in this conflict,
however, greed is ALWAYS present!!  Whether oil, power, image, or what
have you, selfishness is my mind is becoming rampant today.


> 
> Too many Americans have already been killed in a war that didn't have to
> happen. I don't hold the soldiers responsible for the war, I hold Bush
> responsible. 

Amen to that!

> 
> >   Sometimes what you say will
> > come back to haunt THEM why they are being held captive.  Nothing is
> > more hopeless when as a POW you know your country has forgotten you or
> > being called "baby killers" by those who are not only ignorant but
> > selfish (not saying you are).  So say what you want, but anything you
> > say or do can be used against American's in action.
> 
> This is a weak argument. If people are afraid to protest for fear of
> demoralizing the troops then we'd never be able to protest once the
> administration leads the country into an unjust war. Hell, we'd probably
> still be in Vietnam if people had this mindset, or at least would have
> been there a lot longer.

Let me be clear, I've never said that people CAN'T protest, just that
the arguments be sound so as not to endanger the troops more.
> 
> If you want to ask people not to criticize the troops, that's one thing,
> but a blanket statement like "anything you say or do can be used against
> Americans [plural, not possessive] in action" that's rubbish. You know
> as well as I do that the vast majority of the criticism has been
> directed at Dubya and his administration - not the troops. Maybe there
> is someone going around calling the troops "baby killers" this time, but
> I haven't seen it. 

I took an extreme position to evoke thoughtful consideration of past
consequences, not implying that it was truly happening.

> 
> Are you ready to take on the entire Arab world, Kevin? Cause that's
> right where your logic would take us. And if we wanted to prevent
> another 9/11, why not start with Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the
> 9/11 terrorists came from in the first place? Not Iraq. 

Just one question, again: if Saddam was replaced by a democratic country
and the Iraqis people and companies were profiting with Iraqis oil,
would we be at war with them?  Probably, but an "economic" one with
capitalism at the helm. If you had watched 20/20 last night, you would
have seen teenagers who were kids during the first Gulf War tell the
"illegal" satellite dish owners in Iraq that if they were to rise up
against Saddam, 4 MILLION displaced Iragis would come home to help
rebuild their country. That's why I would be heading over to fight. 
Most liberals stick their head in the sand and turn a blind eye.  Do we
have to be the world's police?  No, but one keystone country could help
turn the tide.

BTW, do you know how many Iraqis have been killed by Saddams regime?  Do
you think we should have stopped Hitler sooner than before he had 6
million Jews killed?

> Let me ask you this, Kevin. Is it okay if I walk up and beat the crap
> out of a person because they MIGHT decide to attack me later, or would
> that get me put in jail for assault? If we're going to preemtively
> disarm every country that poses a potential threat, we have to go after
> Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, North Korea... 

BTW, you ever been terrorized by a bully?  Normally one punch to the
nose is all it takes to get them off your back. Too bad most people
don't see Saddam as a bully until THEY get hit in the nose, then it's
too late since every else has been terrorized.

> 
> Saddam is a horrible, evil person -- but he posed no real threat to the
> United States. The leaders of a lot of countries are oppresive and evil,
> so can we invade them next? We had no justifiable reason to attack Iraq,
> none. We can't say we're doing it to liberate Iraqis, because that's not
> the truth - the administration is after the oil, end of story. The
> government had plans drawn up to attack Iraq before 9/11, this was on
> the slate long before the attacks. 

The plans are called war gaming, and our military is primarily for
defense, not offense, which includes the component of deterence.
> 
> As many people have pointed out, it's also hypocritical to say we're
> enforcing U.N. resolutions because 1) We've been quite happy to ignore
> the U.N. when it doesn't suit our purposes and 2) Israel has been
> ignoring the hell out of U.N. resolutions and we've been quite content
> to support them. 
> 
> We cannot be the policeman of the world. We don't have the strength to
> take on every despotic dictator in every country, we don't have the
> money to carry adventurism to every country that's oppressive and we
> don't have the moral right to decide which regimes should stay in power
> and which should not.

Here you are wrong!  If we, as moral citizens, do NOT stand up for what
is right, then who else will?  Relativistic morals create relativistic
situations, but there are absolutes, period. How do I know this? 
Because most people abide by these absolutes with common sense and
sometimes it is not that common at times.

> 
> Yes, we should wait until a country has attacked us -- or at least we
> have information that an attack is imminent -- before attacking them.
> That didn't happen here. Bush claimed the right to attack a country
> because it MIGHT pose a threat SOMEDAY. 

So I guess we should do away with restraining orders for battered
spouses?  Does that mean all spouses can now kill their spouses?  No,
not if there is a pattern that shows an escalation of intent.  Why do
you think that police now arrest abuses spouses when they are called? 
Because it has been shown that once an abusive spouse (normally a
husband) is arrested, there is a dramatic reduction in future
occurances.  I see the same principle, in human terms, with Saddam.

> 
> Following that logic, there are a list of countries as long as my arm
> that now have a legitimate right to attack the U.S. because we MIGHT
> decide to invade them next. 

I do not agree that we should be going after everyone, but normally
getting the big bully does deter others.

As a side note, I'm an independent conservative.  I do not believe that
either the Dems or Republicans have the rightful ownership of all of the
answers, hence being an independent.


-- 
Kevin Cullis <kevincu at orci.com>